AMEN!!! i am all for drill man drill but some things are to vaulable to risk.
This is my take. Pebble has no firm plans and yet, the naysayers are screaming, I don't want to hear about it!!! Does this mine affect fishing waters, no one knows cause there is still no firm plan in hand. But let us just throw emotions into play and hope that works in our favor. Soo Sad and so typical. Half of Dillingham wants the mine, the other half wants to continue to fish, without growth in the community. Bottom line is these people are saying, I make my money from fish so scr_w everybody else, without waiting for a firm plan that can be screwtinized on it's own merits
you're willing to POTENTIALLY risk one of Alaska's best fisheries for a gold mine?
Great news! To say it "merits protection" is sure putting it mild in my view.
And unbelievably good in my opinion.
Perhaps the BOF is starting to realize that the State of Alaska does not presently have what it takes to care for our natural resources. ADFG has almost completely checked out when it comes to habitat protection. Anyone who has any sense of sustainability and has worked closely with the State resource agencies (DNR, DEC and DFG) over the past decade knows that the State will sell out, to the extent that Federal law will allow.
I listened to a few hours of testimony while I was in and out of the house today and I would not have thought that this BOF would have supported this concept. There were a couple of very good speakers on either side of the issue. The board didn't seem too interested in hearing the testimony.
While the partnership would like everyone to keep an open mind since they haven’t put forward a final plan, I knew enough about what Anglo and Rio Tinto have done around the world, prior to ever even hearing about Pebble, to have a strong opinion when they repeatedly speak of open pit mining. If the Pebble Partnership finds new partners, starts talking about underground mining and abandons leeching, I would listen again. After all I use more than my share of Cu and Au. This is a very rich deposit (understatement) and I do think there could be alternatives. Bottom line for me is significant more protection from the State level would be a good thing.
Who says it has to be one side or the other. As of now, there is no firm plan in place but you already are saying that it is fish or minerals. State your basis, besides emotional testimony. What facts do you have to back up a fish or gold commercial entity only? why can't they both co-exist? Nothing but it might possibly harm our fish so let us just shut it down?
Do you have a 4-wheeler or a snow machine? How do you get around if not for fuel? Don't be so hypocritical until you see the final plans. Prudhoe bay was said to be the end of the caribou, yet, I have watched thousands cross under the pipeline and not blink an eye.I know I'm waiting till I make a decision on facts and not hyperboyle. I suggest you guys do the same.
You guys can't be serious, wait till the state has a firm grasp of what is being asked. But.. instead you are screaming that "we" are throwing our resources away. Sorry... but grow up and deal with facts, wait until you see what is being asked, don't just scream we are throwing away a way of life. Sheeesh!!! Emotional dribble and I can't stop repeating myself, wait until you see what is being asked. Nothing is going to be rubber stamped.
ASSumption that I am being hypocritical, when I only asked one question...& I quantified it with POTENTIALLY...
I will celebrate this decision.
The pittance to the state is not worth the risk.
I'm not anti-mining at all. I just can't place faith in Northern Dynasty in that particular area. There is too much to lose.
We should view the minerals in the area as a savings account, not a checking account.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they
just like to pee a lot." --Capitol Brewery
If there was a 98% chance that Pebble Creek mine would not harm the salmon fishery the risk would still be way to high. Some things are not to be chanced. It would be like betting one of your kids on in a poker game while holding 4 jacks. The stakes are WAY to high. I am not a tree hugger by any means but Bristol Bay needs to be left as is. Its just that precious. I dont want any of you to take this wrong but MANY Alaskans dont really realize what you have up there. One needs look no further than the way they treat land during the dipnet season on the Kenai. how anyone could leave that kind of garbage laying around and tear crap up like they do is beyond me. Treasure it an protect it or it will all go away.
Does this mean that all the new illegal aliens won't get gold teeth (paid for by the taxpayer.) like thier predecessors? LOL Tough to be a "gangster" with bad ivory.
I say mine it...... the heck with all this emotional PC save the earth crap. The earth does more damage to itself with one volcanic eruption or a huge rain storm that floods everything then man ever did, and it always heals.
With todays regulations on mines it would be plenty safe. Are any of you aware that the discharge water from any mine in Alaska has to be cleaner then the source it comes from. Mines have zero discharge, they use settling ponds that slowly leach the discharge water.
Everyone wants all the comforts and conveniences of modern living but doesn't want to see anything disrupted to achieve these things. It's a good thing people like this weren't around 100 years ago,
You gotta have minerals to run your computer, you gotta cut trees to build your home, you gotta kill things to eat.
implies that it can be safely recovered. I agree that it probably can be.
Let the State agencies look at the plan (when it comes) and make up your mind then. Pushing for a legislative stop sign is an indication that you are willing to stop all resource development in Alaska. I hope that you are telling your children or grandchildren (if you want them to be able to stay in the state) not to bother with college but get started bodybuilding so they can qualify for them good paying jobs tossing tourist's bags into the bottom of the busses.
Don't make the assumption that I would let them start mining tomorrow, I just want to see the facts before I drink the koolaid.
There are no FACTS available at this moment. Willing to bet the future of the state when you don't have any facts? If you are, lets sit down to a friendly game of cards before you have to leave the state.
There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.
Second, there are facts available. Also, this state has functioned without Pebble Mine. It will function without it in the future if I have anything to do with it.
The facts state that Anglo American has destroyed areas in South Africa, Mali, Ghana, Nevada, and Ireland. Those are facts. Where have they actually mined and not destroyed habitat?
I'm not willing to risk putting faith in a multinational corporation with such a horrible track record. We are told that this mine will be different than all the rest of their mines. This mine will be their first to not kill the fish or ruin the habitat.
Northern Dynasty has done a remarkable PR job. The few potential jobs that come from this are low paying labor jobs. The potential loss is far worse for the state than the potential gain at this point.
Of course, if you sell heavy equipment, you are going to disagree.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they
just like to pee a lot." --Capitol Brewery
In the UNLIKELY event of an oil spill, they could clean up all the oil. Right. Over 20 years later and there is still oil on the beach, sheening off at low water. Wild pink returns in the Western Sound have not returned to commercially harvestable levels and the herring fishery has been closed, basically since the oil spill with two small exceptions.
Don't trust the State to protect the resource, and don't trust a large multi-national corporation to do the right thing. The bean counters have already figured out the worst case scenario for a pay-out to an impaired fishery - you can bet on that. And recent history indicates that they don't need much of a bank account to make the payments.
How hard would it be to come up with one reason or another that every coastal area in AK deserved special protection? Not very. This is the wrong way to go.
I'm not a huge proponent of this mine, but I can't say that I've looked at all the facts. Seems like it may be a little risky. I do know that Alaska depends on all of its diverse natural resources - they are the pillars that support our economy. Personally, I feel better about oil and gas developement than mining. I think that we'd be better off to focus on that. I also realize the importance of the fishery in Bristol Bay. Like Bristol, the fishery in Cook Inlet is vital to my community's health, but the offshore oil and gas industry is just as important here. If Cook Inlet had recieved "special" protection, the oil and gas industry may not have been allowed access to the area. We are currently facing the same threat with the "endangered" Cook Inlet Beluga. I hate to see any animal struggle to survive, but weren't these protections established to protect entire species, not individual groups of animals? What happens when the numbers of treasured Anchorage squirrels drop? Do we make it a "protected" area, and halt all driving, or trust that there are still healthy populations of squirrels in the forest?
One has to remember the incredible amount of money and influence that is being poured into our state by extreme environmentalists who would like to see all developement halted. As a fisherman, I would like to see this state step back and take a balanced, level headed approach to this mining proposal. I too remember the mistakes of the past, but take comfort that we've learned from them. While I'm sure our permitting process could use some perfection, I think that we as a state have proven that conservation and responsible developement can coexist.
It is the responsibility of the company to show no harm in most cases but in Alaska that is not true. In Alaska environmental law the agencies have to show harm to deny a permit and that makes permiting a joke.
So what the Pebble partnership is doing right now is making an investment in the project so at a future date they can play the show me the harm card. That is a function of our permit system and there are too many examples of environmental harm from this to deny it.
Second, the idea that the State is objective with permiting is just not defendable. They are anything but objective in making these decisions - I worked as a consultant to the oil industry for years and I can swear on a bible when an oil company starts to lose on environmental grounds they play the political card - I can tell you how the Waterflood project came about on the North Slope - a political decision that over-ruled the permit agencies.
The same can be said for the pipeline when I worked on it. I was working for the oil companies at the time. So the idea that Pebble just wants to wait and have a fair hearing is bull. They are playing the permitting game and they know how to win given the money and resources they have. They will put a valuable natural resource at risk just for a few short term dollars and profit. It is not about driving cars and gold for watches - that is the standard line but in truth we are a wasteful society and cheap products may actually be hurting us in the long run.
Third, it will be up to the Federal government to protect us from ourselves. It cannot be both mine and fish - that is just wishful thinking. The size of this project is just too big to not lose resources. More importantly, the dams (preliminary plans show 5) need to be maintained for hundreds if not thousands of years. Who is going to do that? Certainly not the mining company. They can fold up and go away when the profits dry up and then the citizens of the State will bear the cost of failure. Look at the superfund sites around the country we have to pay to clean up.
Fourth, people keep saying wait for the final plans but that is also a ruse. The preliminary plans are more than enough to make judgements on this project. Those preliminary plans which are driving design considerations right now are real and will not change significantly in the future. A project like Pebble cannot be doing engineering work and drilling without a good idea of what they plan to do in the future.
This is not emotion which people want to reduce the opposition too. It is my 8 years as an environmental project manager for large development projects like this across the country. I have been an environmental project manager for projects ranging from nuclear power plants to coal fired plants to gas and oil pipelines to dredging projects in New York harbor to the Waterflood project. All these projects have a pattern and what Pebble is telling people is just not the truth.
The first part of your assertion that volcanoes do more damage to the earth, along with rain storms, compared to what man has done, is WRONG! So what makes you think that, we, the unconvinced, are going to believe the rest of what you proport?